I have found the book "Into The Heart" by Kenneth Good very appealing both from a woman's point of view and from a Scriptural aspect. When reading the Bible about how a husband ought to love his wife: Ephesians chapter 5 verses 25, 28, 29, 31, 33, is very clear on that. In Kenneth Good's book I could sense the genuine love this man had for his wife which he had demonstrated in so many ways.
In the jungle, he tried to protect her from harm. During an imminent miscarriage, he insisted on carrying her heavy basket, while they were trekking in the rainforest. Husbands in that culture did not carry women's baskets even if these women were at death's door. Later, when the miscarriage was in progress, he was at her side in the dark of night, trying to comfort her. To shield her from insect bites he sprayed her back with mosquito repellent. A woman is obviously not at her attractive best during a miscarriage or childbirth, but this author was not turned off by her appearance. He did what he could to minimize her suffering. These were acts of kindness out of love. All he wanted to do was to ease her suffering, discomfort and fear. How many men in our Western civilized society would do this? A few but not all!
He further demonstrated his love for his wife when he took her back to the United States. By marrying her, he had made a statement to the WORLD: This is the woman I love, she is the one I have chosen to be the mother of my children. He knew full well that by this interracial cross cultural marriage he would face some criticism. Racism after all is alive and well in our Western Societies. But this author stood by his wife, was never ashamed to be seen with her. Financial sacrifices were made to return for a visit to his wife's tribe and family. It was during such a trip that their second child was born in a jungle hut. It is obvious that every thought of the author was to please his wife, to make her happy, to make her isolation and separation from her family bearable. This is a poignant love story, a story of endurance, a story of sacrifice, a story of one man's unselfish love for his wife. Albeit he lost his wife, but I concur with the saying: " It is better to have loved and lost than not to have loved at all".
A reader in Canada. macska@christiancanada.com
Good referred to the Yanomama as the pain in the neck people instead of the fierce people as Napoleon Chagnon did in his original work of the same title. Good found the Yanomama's lack of concern for privacy somewhat difficult to deal with. In our culture, privacy and independence are the expected norm. We even have terms for behaviors that violate such norms such as invasion of privacy and, of course, trespassing. The Yanomama are not viewed as violent or aggressive but rather as highly emotional and acting without (social) constraints. We might call this behavior impulsive.
Good believed that "... the best way to study the Yanomama was to understand the entire cultural context, rather than concentrate solely on the quantitative measurements...wanted to understand them--and I wanted them to understand me...not simply to record what they were doing, but to comprehend what it meant in the context of their lives." (p. 47)
The Yanomama never use their names in public...they call each other by the appropriate kinship term (father, mother, son, daughter) (p. 52) With a numeric system that stops at two, the Yanomama do not reckon years or ages; instead they categorize people according to general age groups: infants, children, adolescents, adults, elders. (p. 66) Their sense of self (women) included lack of concern for the way they appeared to others. Judgments about another person were not based on how they looked/appeared. Although skills in hunting and shamanism were valued, still every person was on the same level as every other one. There was minimal concern with vanity. (p. 80).
Among the Indians, a visit is never just a visit...and trade is always involved. (p. 97) Normally, the Indians don't like to have their pictures taken since they believe that the image (soul-noreshi) is captured. They were especially irritated when the German scientist Eibel-Eibesfeldt set up a video camera in the middle of the village all day. (p. 137)
I certainly empathize with Kenneth Good's comments about Chagnon's work. Unfortunately, I have never been to the Amazon, or lived with the Yanomamo. I do envy his experiences. In addition, I give complete credibility to his comments and find them most interesting. In the past, I assigned his book as required reading for my Sociology classes. I also list Chagnon's work as supplementary reading as well.
Here's the context: Ken Good was a graduate student under Napoleon Chagnon who was one of the first to do work with the Yanomamo indians. Chagnon wanted Good to do some research (field work) that might help supplement Chagnon's thesis that that Yanomamo are violent more by nature than culture. No matter the reasons, Good ends up not only abandoning Chagnon and his research, but finds the Yanomamo significantly less violent (by nature or culture) than Chagnon did. This may, in part, have been due to the fact that where Chagnon always remained the detached observer (his book is full of graphs, charts, and statistics), Good's got very personal (no stats here, for better or worse).
...Which brings us to the next layer of the story. Beyond being an anthropological perspective on the Yanomama, it is a fantastic - FANTASTIC! - love story. After a few years of living in the Yanomama community, good was offered a wife according to tradition. It took him a while to warm to it (and her even longer, given that he had strange habits like writing in notebooks and wearing 'foot coverings' Who would do such things?!). Their love blossomed, though, and the second half of the book is much about a host of difficulties: his struggle to 'hold on to her' when obligation took him out of the village for months at a time, the struggle to get a legal marriage to a woman who has no birth records, and later, how to get her out of the village with him.
The only problem i had with the book has less to do with the book and more with its circumstances. Good comments that Chagnon, in painting the Yanomama to be 'fierce people' overexaggerated (rather than fabricated) their ferocity. My guess, after reading both books, is that Good did the same thing by possibly underexaggerating. Good, for instance, will speak of some of the heinous things that Yanomama do, speak of it as a ancillary side-note, and wrap it up in two sentences, only returning to the topic chapters down the road. Truth be told, I think the truth lies betwixt Chagnon's and Good's accounts and I can't fault either book, but when one reads the two together, one gets the impression that BOTH authors completely missed (or ignored) things that the other got. How else could such different accounts come to pass?
For all that I strongly recommend this read both for education in anthropology and as one of the best love stories around.